The Independent Republic of the Canongate - tells the stories behind the PR spin of the developers, the architects, politicians and council officials here in Edinburgh, the UK and the world

Wednesday, 6 August 2008

Edinburgh World Heritage

NEW methods of providing funding for conservation charity Edinburgh World Heritage are to be investigated by the council.

Changes to the council's accountancy practices have meant that it is no longer able to provide EWH with the same level of funding as in previous years, around £617,000 per annum.

Adam Wilkinson, director of EWH, has written to the council asking it to reconsider the changes, which will see the local authority cut grant funding by around £500,000.

In a report to the council's planning committee, Dave Anderson, the council's director of city development, said there were a number of options which the council should explore for funding.

And he stressed the council's commitment to finding funds for EWH."The funding of EWH is affected as a result of changes to accounting procedures that imply all funding to EWH must become revenue funding," he said. "This puts pressure on already restricted revenue budgets."He added that the council would be best to re-examine the funding issue after an ongoing assessment of the management of world heritage sites undertaken by EWH.

The Finance & General Purposes Committee had discussed funding issues raisedby Alan Henderson’s letter of 14 March 2008 at its meeting immediatelypreceding the board.

The Committee recommended that EWH should make a direct approach topoliticians at an appropriate level (rather than to City officials) to explain theimpact of the proposed cuts.

They needed to be made aware that such asignificant cut in funding would have a profoundly detrimental impact on thecity, which would reflect badly on its WH status and cause embarrassment. TheCommittee proposed that EWH should ask for continuing financial support fromCEC & HS until there was a steady income stream from repayable grants. EWHwould need to support the proposal with a strategy and statistics on theanticipated income and timescale of repayments.

The Director was due to meet Cllr Jenny Dawe and it was suggested that thisshould be followed by a more formal meeting with the Chairman.

The Director was also due to meet the new Director of City Development.It was agreed that EWH should pursue the question of receiving funding from adifferent Council budget, other than the City Development Department, whichhad received a significant cut in funding.

Will Garrett suggested that EWH might become involved in restoring CEC ownedproperties, for which there could be funding.

The board highlighted the following points for raising in future discussions:-

• The need to meet UNESCO requirements to preserve Edinburgh as aWHS (not referred to in Alan Henderson’s letter)• [reserved as confidential business]

• CEC needs to be made aware of the long lead time required togenerate applicants’ interest. If funding withdrawn it would be difficultto regenerate enthusiasm (‘Grangemouth syndrome’) [reserved asconfidential business]

• Larger projects need long-term commitment. [reserved as confidentialbusiness]. A 3-year rolling programme is essential. UNESCO recommends5 years needed to plan ahead with confidence. (ManagementGuidelines for Cultural Heritage Sites, p.5)• The difficulty of fitting work into a rigid timetable.• If CEC funding withdrawn, it might have profound effect on HS funding.

• EWH should show examples of the excellent work and additional valueachieved by its grant schemes and projects.

• Demonstrate shift to focus on regeneration.

• Bear in mind that small projects can generate a lot of interest and bringadded value (eg event to mark restoration of Duke of Buccleuchmemorial)

• The proposal to raise funds on a project by project basis might not workas a spread of prospective schemes was needed to achieveresults/spend. In particular, if EWH is increasingly looking at supportingareas of regeneration these are harder to get going.

It was noted that Edinburgh and Lothians Greenspace Trust operates on aproject by project basis and it might be worth speaking to them.

It was confirmed that HS was awaiting the recommendations in the Tribal reporton EWH and the City Heritage Trusts before taking a decision on future fundingand the continuation of a three-year funding programme. However, it wasnoted that HS supported the work of the Trust as a whole, rather than identifyingareas of work in response to bids.

The recommendations of the Finance & General Purposes Committee wereagreed. The Director was asked to produce an outline paper on funding,including fund-raising and lobbying, for the Board meeting on 14 July. TheChairman proposed that board members should be allocated tasks at thisstage. Detailed proposals would be discussed at the awayday in the Autumn.Action

A report following the Grants & Projects Committee on 7 May had beencirculated. This showed the severity of the effects of cuts in funding by CEC andHistoric Scotland and the uncertainty of the future of the Conservation FundingProgramme.It cited examples of a few of the many projects which would not be carried outif continued funding was not secured [reserved as confidential business].Action